METHODS: The objective of this study is to determine the safety and efficacy of a novel crystalline sirolimus-coated balloon (cSCB) technology in an unselective, international, large-scale patient population. Percutaneous coronary interventions of native stenosis, in-stent stenosis, and chronic total occlusions with the SCB in patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome were included. The primary outcome variable is the target lesion failure (TLF) rate at 12 months, defined as the composite rate of target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), cardiac death or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary outcome variables include TLF at 24 months, ischemia driven TLR at 12 and 24 months and all-cause death, cardiac death at 12 and 24 months.

DISCUSSION: Since there is a wealth of patient-based all-comers data for iPCB available for this study, a propensity-score matched analysis is planned to compare cSCB and iPCB for the treatment of de novo and different types of ISR. In addition, pre-specified analyses in challenging lesion subsets such as chronic total occlusions will provide evidence whether the two balloon coating technologies differ in their clinical benefit for the patient.

METHODS: A subgroup analysis was performed on the 24-month data comparing the Asian cohort (AC) to non-Asian cohort (NAC).

RESULTS: AC included 49 patients with 77 lesions. AC was significantly younger (65.6 vs 70.3 years, p < 0.05), had more diabetes (87.8% vs 45.3%, p < 0.05), and was more likely to present with CLTI (73.5% vs 35.3%, p < 0.001) compared to NAC. They had significantly longer mean target lesions (115 vs 86.9 mm, p = 0.006), and received significantly higher paclitaxel doses (10.7 vs 7.2 mg, p = 0.0005). Device, technical and procedural successes were 125/125(100%), 95/97(97.5%) and 45/49(91.8%), respectively. There was no significant difference in target lesion revascularization rates between groups (10.5% vs 12%, p = 0.91). However, the AC had more major adverse events (30.2% vs 16.1%, p = 0.001), amputations (26.3% vs 6.2%, p < 0.05) and mortality (37.9% vs 10.6%, p < 0.05) at 24 months.

METHODS: We studied the systematic use of SBA with a low profile, non-slip element device prior to DCB angioplasty in an unselected, non-randomized patient population. This prospective, all-comers study enrolled patients with de novo lesions as well as in-stent restenotic lesions in bare metal stents (BMS-ISR) and drug-eluting stents (DES-ISR). The primary endpoint was the target lesion failure (TLF) rate at 9 months (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02554292).

RESULTS: A total of 481 patients (496 lesions) were recruited to treat de novo lesions (78.4%, 377), BMS-ISR (4.0%, 19), and DES-ISR (17.6%, 85). Overall risk factors were acute coronary syndrome (ACS, 20.6%, 99), diabetes mellitus (46.8%, 225), and atrial fibrillation (8.5%, 41). Average lesion lengths were 16.7 ± 10.4 mm in the de novo group, and 20.1 ± 8.9 mm (BMS-ISR) and 16.2 ± 9.8 mm (DES-ISR) in the ISR groups. Scoring balloon diameters were 2.43 ± 0.41 mm (de novo), 2.71 ± 0.31 mm (BMS-ISR), and 2.92 ± 0.42 mm (DES-ISR) whereas DCB diameters were 2.60 ± 0.39 mm (de novo), 3.00 ± 0.35 mm (BMS-ISR), and 3.10 ± 0.43 mm (DES-ISR), respectively. The overall accumulated TLF rate of 3.0% (14/463) was driven by significantly higher target lesion revascularization rates in the BMS-ISR (5.3%, 1/19) and the DES-ISR group (6.0%, 5/84). In de novo lesions, the TLF rate was 1.1% (4/360) without differences between calcified and non-calcified lesions (p = 0.158) and small vs. large reference vessel diameters with a cutoff value of 3.0 mm (p = 0.901).

BACKGROUND: Data regarding the performance of a DCB-only approach, especially in patients with previously untreated de-novo coronary artery disease (CAD), are still limited.

METHODS: This study was conducted as an international, multicenter registry primarily enrolling patients with de-novo CAD. However, it was also possible to include patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR). The primary endpoint was the rate of clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) after 9 months.

RESULTS: A total of 1,025 patients with a mean age of 64.0 ± 11.2 years were enrolled. The majority of treated lesions were de-novo (66.9%), followed by drug-eluting-stent ISR (DES-ISR; 22.6%) and bare-metal-stent ISR (BMS-ISR; 10.5%). The TLR rate was lower in the de-novo group (2.3%) when compared to BMS- (2.9%) and DES-ISR (5.8%) (P = 0.049). Regarding MACE, there was a trend toward fewer events in the de-novo group (5.6%) than in the BMS- (7.8%) and DES-ISR cohort (9.6%) (P = 0.131). Subgroup analyses revealed that lesion type (95% CI 1.127-6.587); P = 0.026) and additional stent implantation (95% CI 0.054-0.464; P = 0.001) were associated with higher TLR rates.

METHODS: The present study included 812 patients in the ABSORB EXTEND study in which a total of 215 diabetic patients were treated with Absorb BVS. In addition, 882 diabetic patients treated with EES in pooled data from the SPIRIT clinical program (SPIRIT II, SPIRIT III and SPIRIT IV trials) were used for comparison by applying propensity score matching using 29 different variables. The primary endpoint was ischemia driven major adverse cardiac events (ID-MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and ischemia driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR).

RESULTS: After 2 years, the ID-MACE rate was 6.5% in the Absorb BVS vs. 8.9% in the Xience group (P = 0.40). There was no difference for MACE components or definite/probable device thrombosis (HR: 1.43 [0.24,8.58]; P = 0.69). The occurrence of MACE was not different for both diabetic status (insulin- and non-insulin-requiring diabetes) in all time points up to the 2-year follow-up for the Absorb and Xience groups.